Power Generators and Misc

[MissingAll4Seasons]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

We do get lots of wind in the interior, but sporadically (not steady winds). The same goes for Anchorage and vicinity, but every now and then there are extreme winds. I remember back in the '70s when the winds were so high one time that a trailer park was destroyed. Anchorage Kodiak is notorious for wind gusts, too. But Kodiak tops Anchorage on high gusts. That's probably why wind generators are not favored.

You won't be able to alter any of the salmon-bearing streams in most of the interior, at least not legally.

I'm not sure why the wind ratings in the Interior are so low on the maps. I remember it being pretty darn blustery most of the time I was up in Denali and around Nenana. Good thing about wind is that you only need one day of high wind gusts to fill up your batteries... if you have enough batteries then you could probably make it until the next bluster (1-5 days) if they are fairly frequent depending on your system and usage. You'd need to make sure you were governed and reinforced for high winds, that's for sure. Better safe than sorry!

Yes, I wouldn't want to mess with salmon spawning by installing a large hydro... although some of the smaller home units are less invasive and, supposedly, "fish friendly". Kind of moot since I've only got seasonal streams in my area though.

[susitna-flower]

I think it is so fsad to see super green people falling all over the HYDRO, WIND, and even solar here in AK....THERE will never be enough people support these to do much about our needs as a whole society.

First solar and wind do NOT fill a battery bank with enough power to run a home through even one cloudy/windless day. WE tried it...on the solar at any rate. Having 16 huge 2 volt batteries, and 2 , 2000 watt inverters. It cost $15,000 to install, and worked so-so for about 10 years, then after shipping the inverters back to trace for the 4th time to be repaired, we gave up. The batteries were failing, freezing and breaking, and all the time we were super conservative on electrical use. Even then, only about 5 months out of the year did the sun come anywhere near producing enough to run a modest home.

We always had to use the generator to wash clothes and pump water..

Wind is a no go. Ice buildup in the winter will just ruin your unit.

Hydro though is the one I think takes the cake. It seems like the far left would love it. Renewable and all....but just wait...Why do you think the Susitna dam project didn't ever get built! Yea, it was the ENVIRONMENTAL Lobby! So even if something is earth friendly, no fossil fuel, they will grind it to a stop with law suits, and studies! After all just cause we need electricity, doesn't mean you can hurt even a minnow coming down the Pike.....

[MissingAll4Seasons]

Originally Posted by susitna-flower

I think it is so fsad to see super green people falling all over the HYDRO, WIND, and even solar here in AK....THERE will never be enough people support these to do much about our needs as a whole society.

First solar and wind do NOT fill a battery bank with enough power to run a home through even one cloudy/windless day. WE tried it...on the solar at any rate. Having 16 huge 2 volt batteries, and 2 , 2000 watt inverters. It cost $15,000 to install, and worked so-so for about 10 years, then after shipping the inverters back to trace for the 4th time to be repaired, we gave up. The batteries were failing, freezing and breaking, and all the time we were super conservative on electrical use. Even then, only about 5 months out of the year did the sun come anywhere near producing enough to run a modest home.

We always had to use the generator to wash clothes and pump water..

Wind is a no go. Ice buildup in the winter will just ruin your unit.

Hydro though is the one I think takes the cake. It seems like the far left would love it. Renewable and all....but just wait...Why do you think the Susitna dam project didn't ever get built! Yea, it was the ENVIRONMENTAL Lobby! So even if something is earth friendly, no fossil fuel, they will grind it to a stop with law suits, and studies! After all just cause we need electricity, doesn't mean you can hurt even a minnow coming down the Pike.....

What equipment (inverter was Xantrex Trace right - what model?) and batteries did you have? I want to make sure I don't get stuff from that manufacturer Some of the newer stuff is a little bit better for extreme conditions... like the AGM (Absorbed Glass Mat) batteries resist freezing because they aren't wet and don't have the same venting and spilling hazards that the Lead Acid batteries do and no haz-mat like the Lithium batteries can (but they are pretty expensive). Yeah, I do know what you mean... when your system isn't functioning for whatever reason, life comes to a grinding halt and things suck. I've been there and done that in the middle of a -30 blizzard in CO and it was no fun at all! I definitely advocate having a fuel genset wired into your system, even if you only (hopefully) have to use it for emergencies. #1 rule in life and survival is to always have at least one backup plan!

All power generation systems have an environmental impact of some sort, it's just a matter of finding the one that works best for your situation with least amount of impact or the most "acceptable risk". I don't think we have a perfect solution yet, and doubt there really is such a thing as a single perfect solution for everyone either. One size does not fit all. I think the more left-leaning sometimes forget that and then you get knee-jerk solutions that never get off the ground or flat-out don't work because there wasn't enough research or planning; and then the more right-leaning use both the lack of solution and the lefty knee-jerk as an argument not to do anything at all and to dismiss the whole thing as bogus. Somewhere there has to be a middle ground where people from all over the spectrum can work toward a common goal of less fossil fuel dependence and cleaner/cheaper/renewable energy sources... even if they're doing it with different means and methods unique to their situation. Every little bit helps in the end; but if no one tries, we'll never improve the technology to the point were it's viable for most situations.

I'll talk with my engineer "nerd" and see what he says about ice build-up on your turbines. I think he worked on the systems they installed down in Antarctica, so I'm sure he's got some info. Thanks for reminding me to ask him

[warptman]

Here you guys go, instead of hijacking other people's threads, start one on your own!

[MissingAll4Seasons]

Hey Rance... do you think you could take some of the "hijack posts" from the road access thread and move them over here for us?

[SuValley]

Anyone hear of nuclear batteries?

Check them out, they are coming

[MissingAll4Seasons]

Nuclear batteries, specifically betavoltaic batteries utilizing radioactive decay of tritium (radioactive hydrogen), are awesome and definitely a step in the right direction. To the best of our scientific and medical knowledge, beta-radiation is only harmful to interior cellular structures but does not penetrate the skin as readily as gamma-radiation and does not affect internal structures as drastically as alpha-radiation. For these reasons it is considered not as biologically harmful as the other two forms of radiation (but it is harmful in certain circumstances - see the effects of radium on Madame Curie and watch makers in the 1900's). However, with the proper safeguards, betavoltaic batteries should not pose a significant health risk... just like the radium dials of your watch don't.

Beta-batteries are also technically "rechargable", but only at the source. So after it's lifespan, you would need to return the casing to the manufacturer for recharge (like toner cartridges).

Beta-batteries would, theorectically, be lighter and smaller than other battery types... so therefore would not create as much (if any) power:weight ratio degradation for vehicles that use them (specifically aircraft and automobile where battery weight currently negatively affects performance).

However, there are a few things we need to figure out before considering beta-batteries as usuable alternative resources:

1. Tritium is created by bombardment of hydrogen atoms in a super-collider (or as a byproduct of nuclear power plants). So, we're using energy to create energy. The original power source needs to be clean and sustainable, with a minimum amount of efficiency loss in the different stages of power transformation in order to make this a more efficient and less polluting power source.

2. The limits of temperature and pressure that the battery casing can withstand. Since the battery contains radioactive gas, and gas condenses and expands more readily at different temperatures and altitudes, the casing will need to withstand the inplosive pressure created at cold temps or high pressure (i.e. under water or at lower altitudes than manufacture), and the explosive pressure created at high temps or low pressures (i.e. higher altitudes than manufacture). The radioactive decay will continue at the same rate regardless of gaseous pressure, even if it turned to liquid or solid at extreme low temps... so we're just worried about the casing tolerances here.

3. The method of recharge needs to be fully researched, planned, and appropriately promoted to insure compliance and efficiency.

4. The safety risks and necessary precautions in the event of catastrophic failure of the casing (either through implosion, explosion or impact - i.e. a car accident).


On a side note, there are several automotive manufacturers currently building electric hydrogen-fuel-cell cars (a chemical reaction, not radioactive or combustion) that should be widely available in the next 2-3 years. The emissions from these vehicles are nominal (water and oxygen, and an extremely small amount of air pollutants). The testing of these prototypes has indicated that FCV (fuel cell vehicles) would have increased performance compared to similarly sized lead acid battery vehicles and conventional combustion vehicles. However, since the hydrogen is stored in pressurized tanks in the vehicle, car accidents that rupture those tanks could result in explosion (either pressure or incendiary) but that explosion would be such high velocity that it would create less collateral damage, but everyone in the car would probably be a goner. Conversely, any non-catastrophic leak caused by failure or accident would not leave any pollutants (unlike fuel, fluid, and lubricating oil spills common in combustion vehicle accidents).